Jump to content
 

Elizabeth Line / Crossrail Updates.


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Er, no. TfL operations have been working with a fully, multi-functional railway on the Eastern section (particularly at, and east of, Stratford) for a year or two now, and of course, for a decade or so, on the NLL and ELL (and more recently SLL). Whilst the arrangements are different for the Crossrail central section, the ability to liaise and manage peturbation is well rehearsed. The test will be whether the peturbation pre-planning, once the tunnel section is open, stacks up in contact with the enemy.....

Not really. The Liverpool Street - Shenfield services that have become TfL's and, ultimately, the eastern part of Crossrail, have the Up and Down Electric Lines more or less to themselves. Everything else uses the Main Lines.

On the Western, almost everything apart from the inter-city services uses the Relief Lines, so TfL will have to put up with the other GWR stopping services and, more critically, freight. The latter will include additional as required services to cover for the normal route via Oxford being out of commission from time to time.

 

Jim

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, caradoc said:

Thanks for the update regarding interoperability St.Simon, and clearly there was no choice but to comply with the directive, but again, I have to wonder why that directive has to apply to Crossrail, the central (ie new) section of which will never be required to accept any other trains that those specifically designed for it, currently Class 345, and whatever types succeed it in the future. It just seems to be absolute overkill to apply such a blanket standard regardless of the reality on the ground.

 

The reasons are contained in the European Commission's derogation that permits temporary use of the Siemens Trainguard CBTC system in the central core. The EC determined that Crossrail is part of the UK national rail network and therefore falls under the scope of the interoperability directive which demands compliance with the TSI's. In respect of signalling this means using one of the ETCS levels.

 

I would be interested to understand why TfL thought it necessary to continue with Trainguard rather than using ETCS level 2 as per Thameslink especially since if we had remained in the EU migration to ETCS would have been required. 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

There's something wrong there because this doesn't normally happen when quoting,

 

Because it's not a quote, it's a link to a specific message which when entered into a reply the software RMweb uses embed in the format as seen - where in addition to part of the message being linked to it also includes the beginning of the very first post in the the thread.

 

So yes, this is how links to specific messages always appear.

 

You can see for yourself - choose any post and click on the "share this post" icon on the upper right of the message (the 3 connected dots), copy the URL that pops up, and paste that url into a reply - the software after a second or so will expand that URL into what you have seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

That goes directly against a number of other things I have read on other forums which are quite clear that the ATP and ECTS do interfere with each other in the Heathrow Tunnels!

 

Interesting, before I wrote my reply I asked my design colleagues working on ETCS at Heathrow about any interference and they've heard nothing and I fairly regularly talk to the engineers for the ETCS at Heathrow and for the ATP, I have yet to hear any comments about interference.

 

They've tested, successfully from what I can gather, ETCS trains (both the Class 97s and Class 313) on ETCS in Heathrow and there's no reports of ATP faults down the tunnel from what I can tell.

 

Simon  

Edited by St. Simon
  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

I would be interested to understand why TfL thought it necessary to continue with Trainguard rather than using ETCS level 2 as per Thameslink especially since if we had remained in the EU migration to ETCS would have been required. 

 

I wander if it a simple case of the TfL signallers, operators, maintenance etc. know CBTC from other tube lines (although they are SelTrac, they presumably work roughly similarly?) and went down that route?

 

Simon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

 

The reasons are contained in the European Commission's derogation that permits temporary use of the Siemens Trainguard CBTC system in the central core. The EC determined that Crossrail is part of the UK national rail network and therefore falls under the scope of the interoperability directive which demands compliance with the TSI's. In respect of signalling this means using one of the ETCS levels.

 

I would be interested to understand why TfL thought it necessary to continue with Trainguard rather than using ETCS level 2 as per Thameslink especially since if we had remained in the EU migration to ETCS would have been required. 

 

Thanks david.hill64.

 

It seems to me that insisting on a different type of signalling for the new section of railway has actually made it less 'interoperable' with the rest of the UK network, due to the incompatibility with the signalling on either side ! Not to mention the expense, delays etc.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
16 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Er, no. TfL operations have been working with a fully, multi-functional railway on the Eastern section (particularly at, and east of, Stratford) for a year or two now, and of course, for a decade or so, on the NLL and ELL (and more recently SLL). Whilst the arrangements are different for the Crossrail central section, the ability to liaise and manage peturbation is well rehearsed. The test will be whether the peturbation pre-planning, once the tunnel section is open, stacks up in contact with the enemy.....

No - they have yet to come up against a really multi-traffic railway where train speeds and stopping frequencies vary between all stations stoppers, 100 slu+ 4,000+ton freights running at speed, diverted 75mph liner trains, 110 capable EMUs, and 125mph capable IETs.  True they do currently share in various places the NR tracks they use with some relatively slow and infrequent freight services but as Jim pointed out the overall mix is nothing like the situation on the GWML at the best of times and it is of course even worse - as 'RJS 1977' has already pointed out - when there is a two-track railway in operation, which can be on either the Main or Relief Lines depending on the reason for it.

 

The big problem - as already demonstrated with the 'Slough' axle counter failure is that all stations stoppers - make a disproportionate use of line capacity on a two track railway which has a lot of non-stopping trains; they're in fact slower overall than many of the freights using the GWML and there are two or three of the latter in many clock face hours.  In fact with what now appears to be a longer freight 'white period' in the Down direction during the evening peak there can be a whole succession of freights leaving Acton in a relatively short time and in many cases working as part of something which isn't much different from a 'just in time' arrangement in order to ensure that wagons are available in time for their next loaded (in most cases) or empty working.

Edited by The Stationmaster
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to see the Contingency Plans for unplanned reduction of the various sections of the GWML between Paddington and Reading from four tracks to two. These should spell out, based on the length of the restricted section, which trains run and which do not, in order to keep a reasonable level (in the circumstances) of train service going. They should also be agreed between Network Rail and the Train Operators concerned. Hopefully these are in place, and signed up to by TfL ?!!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
38 minutes ago, caradoc said:

It would be interesting to see the Contingency Plans for unplanned reduction of the various sections of the GWML between Paddington and Reading from four tracks to two. These should spell out, based on the length of the restricted section, which trains run and which do not, in order to keep a reasonable level (in the circumstances) of train service going. They should also be agreed between Network Rail and the Train Operators concerned. Hopefully these are in place, and signed up to by TfL ?!!

They were always agreed in the past under Rules of the Route for pre-planned situations and there was a 'two-track WTT' drawn up and published with variations in respect of which sections were closed.  That was for planned closures but is a very long established practice going back to the late 1980s if not a bit earlier.

 

As far as perturbation situations are concerned all it needs is a set of pre-agreed priority lists because the permutations are a very long list and doing a plan for each and every one would be wasteful in the extreme because most would never be used.  so the priority list would simply set out which services are to be thinned/cancelled over various section - e.g two track Slough - Maidenhead, no trains to call at Burnham and Taplow, x number of trains not to run (that's a very simple one as both have ample alternative parallel 'bus routes and Burnham in any case only has Relief Line platforms plus the distances are comparatively short.  Similarly two track east of Southall - no trains to call at Hanwell, West Ealing, and Acton, number of services calling at Ealing Broadway to be reduced to X per hour, y number of trains per hour not to run.  And so on

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

That goes directly against a number of other things I have read on other forums which are quite clear that the ATP and ECTS do interfere with each other in the Heathrow Tunnels! The reports I have seen all say that the fundamental problem is the way each acts within a tube - there is not a problem mixing both out in the open air on the GWML proper. RF engineers can show the two can be seen to interact even without a train!

 

Just wondering, did these other reports offer authoritative sources, or name their references? I appreciate it's not always obvious when other people are offering opinions, hypothesis, conjecture,  press releases, lobbying or policy statements. The unwary person can easily be mislead into believing these are facts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
1 hour ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Just wondering, did these other reports offer authoritative sources, or name their references? I appreciate it's not always obvious when other people are offering opinions, hypothesis, conjecture,  press releases, lobbying or policy statements. The unwary person can easily be mislead into believing these are facts.

I think 'St Simon' is more than close enough to this subject in the real world to give us some unbiased and generally well informed information on the various signalling systems on the GWML and Heathrow branch.  In any case the Heathrow branch (and the GWML come to that) only potentially becomes a problem when both ATP and ETCS have to be in use alongside each and that would in any case be subject to safety validation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
5 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Interesting, before I wrote my reply I asked my design colleagues working on ETCS at Heathrow about any interference and they've heard nothing and I fairly regularly talk to the engineers for the ETCS at Heathrow and for the ATP, I have yet to hear any comments about interference.

 

They've tested, successfully from what I can gather, ETCS trains (both the Class 97s and Class 313) on ETCS in Heathrow and there's no reports of ATP faults down the tunnel from what I can tell.

 

Simon  

 

Naturally things may have improved since the articles I saw were written but I definitely saw references to the fact that the only way the engineers could get ECTS to work reliably down the hole was to switch off the ATP system. If so it would be most informative to have some engineering fact based clarity - because there is no doubt the engineers have had significant problems and its a bare faced lie to say otherwise (not that you did of course Simon)

 

If it were easily fixable then we wouldn't have had years of 'delays in signalling commissioning' in the Heathrow tunnels liberally sprinkled through official Crossrail documents investigation delays to the project.

 

As any engineer know the pattern radio frequency propagation is markedly different in tubes to to the open air and I also understand the matter is made worse by the carrier frequencies BR picked for the ATP system which are the same or very close top those used by ECTS.

 

In fact I believe the BR ATP system borrowed quite a lot from a Belgian safety system (including the problematic carrier frequency)  - which has been dumped over there in the past couple of years precisely because it interferes with ECTS.

 

Given the takeover of HEX by GWR (and the use of 387s) only came out AFTER Crossrail was shown to be seriously behind schedule gives credence to the reports that finding a solution to run both systems in parallel was not giving results and more drastic measures were required.

 

Again, this is not an attack on you or your colleagues - but I suspect the truth is not as simple as you are making out.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
3 hours ago, KeithMacdonald said:

 

Just wondering, did these other reports offer authoritative sources, or name their references? I appreciate it's not always obvious when other people are offering opinions, hypothesis, conjecture,  press releases, lobbying or policy statements. The unwary person can easily be mislead into believing these are facts.

 

There is no smoke without fire - and there are a number of other things that have happened which add credence to the idea the two systems cannot be made to work together in the tunnels.

 

For example the takeover of HEX by GWR and the provision of ETCS ready 387 units over the original stock only occurred AFTER it was revealed the Crossrail project was going to be significantly delayed. It was never in the original Crossrail plans which assumed the new 345s would run alongside the Siemens HEX stock.

 

Secondly 'signalling issues' on the Heathrow branch have been repeatedly mentioned in official documents as a problem area - for a good few years now, not just 6 months indicating the engineers are really struggling with that aspect. Given the short amount of track involved it is quite clearly a more significant issue than merely installing and testing the kit running late

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
16 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

 

The reasons are contained in the European Commission's derogation that permits temporary use of the Siemens Trainguard CBTC system in the central core. The EC determined that Crossrail is part of the UK national rail network and therefore falls under the scope of the interoperability directive which demands compliance with the TSI's. In respect of signalling this means using one of the ETCS levels.

 

I would be interested to understand why TfL thought it necessary to continue with Trainguard rather than using ETCS level 2 as per Thameslink especially since if we had remained in the EU migration to ETCS would have been required. 

 

The whole 'Interoperability thing' the EU are on about is blown out of the water by platform heights and the use of things like platform edge doors in the core!

 

Send a freight or passenger train built to standard UK loading gauge (let alone one built to European gauge) down there and it will hit various bits of infrastructure!

 

Thats why the derogation was easy to get - although it might be standard gauge track, use the standard 25KV OLE - virtually everything else is going to be different (for good reasons - e.g. to reduce stepping distances, level boarding etc)

 

As for the selection of the 'TrainGuard' system - one VERY compelling reason is at the time of selection, it was very much a 'proven' product - unlike ECTS which was still at an experimental stage and had not been fitted to any line with aspirations for 30TPH.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

No - they have yet to come up against a really multi-traffic railway where train speeds and stopping frequencies vary between all stations stoppers, 100 slu+ 4,000+ton freights running at speed, diverted 75mph liner trains, 110 capable EMUs, and 125mph capable IETs.  True they do currently share in various places the NR tracks they use with some relatively slow and infrequent freight services but as Jim pointed out the overall mix is nothing like the situation on the GWML at the best of times and it is of course even worse - as 'RJS 1977' has already pointed out - when there is a two-track railway in operation, which can be on either the Main or Relief Lines depending on the reason for it.

 

 

 

The intensity is somewhat greater, I will concede, but the mix is roughly similar, with 100mph and 110mph trains and at least a twice hourly flow of freightliners and other cross-London freights intermixing, and threading across the mains, in the western direction on the Anglian routes (and to an extent on the NLL).  I am not arguing that there are greater challenges on the WR, but your point was originally about the ability of a TfL control to work with NR and other TOC controls, and I believe (from experience with doing exactly that) that the principles are already well established.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The intensity is somewhat greater, I will concede, but the mix is roughly similar, with 100mph and 110mph trains and at least a twice hourly flow of freightliners and other cross-London freights intermixing, and threading across the mains, in the western direction on the Anglian routes (and to an extent on the NLL).  I am not arguing that there are greater challenges on the WR, but your point was originally about the ability of a TfL control to work with NR and other TOC controls, and I believe (from experience with doing exactly that) that the principles are already well established.

From Shenfield in to Stratford the GE is effectively two parallel railways, the Electric Lines, used predominantly by the stopping services (now TfL's) and the Main Lines, used by pretty well everything else, passenger and freight. That isn't really a problem, as the only additional traffic the Mains have to handle west of Shenfield are the Southend services. The Mains and Electrics swap sides between Romford and Stratford, so the freights headed for the North London Line don't have to cross TfL's services. That's very different from the Western, where the freights and TfL's services have to share the Relief Lines.

 

On the North London Line, TfL have to operate alongside the freights, and from what gets said on the grapevine, they aren't amused, but it's not their railway so it is a case of having to put up with it. Elsewhere, TfL have the Watford DC Lines to themselves, and not much competition from Southern on the slow lines south of New Cross. Hence, the Western is going to be an interesting challenge.

 

Jim

  • Agree 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

The whole 'Interoperability thing' the EU are on about is blown out of the water by platform heights and the use of things like platform edge doors in the core!

 

Send a freight or passenger train built to standard UK loading gauge (let alone one built to European gauge) down there and it will hit various bits of infrastructure!

 

Thats why the derogation was easy to get - although it might be standard gauge track, use the standard 25KV OLE - virtually everything else is going to be different (for good reasons - e.g. to reduce stepping distances, level boarding etc)

 

As for the selection of the 'TrainGuard' system - one VERY compelling reason is at the time of selection, it was very much a 'proven' product - unlike ECTS which was still at an experimental stage and had not been fitted to any line with aspirations for 30TPH.

 

Phil some speculation in your comment I think. You imply that the central core has been built to a very restricted loading gauge!!!

 

We seem to have been able to run construction trains and 345's in the tunnels without problems. 345's apparently cope well with standard UK platforms and those in the Crossrail central section. My assumption is that the civil infrastructure in the tunnels conforms to the passenger train and civil works TSI's which themselves contain an opt out to let UK continue to use the existing gauge throughout the system. The electrification works might even conform to the Energy TSI as the use of PSD's will have mitigated part of the risk.

 

Trainguard: depends on when the choice was made. The argument for the derogation appears to be that the core needed moving block which as you rightly say is not a proven product as ETCS level 3. Hence the moves to allow an ETCS 2/3 hybrid. (Just to say again that Bombardier has supplied a fully functional mixed traffic ETCS level 3 look alike system to Turkmenistan (I think: it's one of the -stans). But it uses TETRA not GSM as the carrier so doesn't count). But Thameslink, which is ETCS level 2 has a 30 TPH design through the central core. Given that if we had remained in the EU, Trainguard would have to be ripped out soon and replaced by ETCS, it would have been more sensible to adopt ETCS level 2 throughout.

 

Although Trainguard is a proven product, every metro signalling system is tailored to its application. The wording of the derogation implies that a 'communications bearer capable of supporting ETCS' ie GSM radio , shall be installed as part of the initial installation. What isn't clear to me is whether the intention is that GSM should be used as the data carrier for the Trainguard system. If it is, then it is a completely new development of Trainguard which typically uses 2.4GHz and 5.2GHz Wi-Fi signals as the data carrier. Moreover in the application of Trainguard that I am currently assessing, the use of twin frequencies is a cornerstone of the safety case. If Siemens has had to move away from this - and being 6000 miles away from Crossrail I have no idea what they are actually using - it would have been a significant development.

 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it seems that Crossrail and Thameslink were unaware of what each other was doing. Otherwise we might have had only ETCS and TPWS/AWS as the onboard systems, and saved a fortune.

 

Finally more comments about the derogation. It permits CBTC to be used until ETCS is capable of supporting ATO (already in use in Thameslink), communications with PSD and auto reverse. The Bangkok skytrain CBTC system is a metro version of ETCS level 2 and already supports both communications with PSD and auto reverse. The conditions for the derogation to end may well exist before Crossrail is commissioned.

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
12 hours ago, david.hill64 said:

 

Phil some speculation in your comment I think. You imply that the central core has been built to a very restricted loading gauge!!!

 

We seem to have been able to run construction trains and 345's in the tunnels without problems. 345's apparently cope well with standard UK platforms and those in the Crossrail central section. My assumption is that the civil infrastructure in the tunnels conforms to the passenger train and civil works TSI's which themselves contain an opt out to let UK continue to use the existing gauge throughout the system. The electrification works might even conform to the Energy TSI as the use of PSD's will have mitigated part of the risk.

 

Construction trains (even if they use UK locos and wagons) will be heavily restricted (e.g. pass through at walking pace) and are a very different proposition to running such trains once the line is open.

 

It has long been established that you CANNOT have level boarding between UK trains and the platform if the line has to accommodate freight wagons due to clearances.

 

Such platforms are higher than UK or even EU TSI standards permit and as such are foul of the UK loading gauge - they can only exist where tracks are EXCLUSIVELY used by dedicated passenger stock like the Crossrail core and the East London line.

 

Equally platform edge doors create complex aerodynamics - once again you try running a freight or non stopping passenger train through them and there will be problems.

 

Both these features mean that the core of Crossrail is certainly not TSI compliment REGARDLESS of what form of signalling is used and consequently it has a derogation from requiring to use ECTS in future as through running by anything other than bespoke stock will not be possible.

 

There was, and still is NO OBLIGATION to change the signalling system after a derogation has been granted regardless of whether we were still an EU member precisely because the conditions which gave rise to the derogation (the physical infrastructure) won't change.

 

Thameslink is rather different because unlike Crossrail its platforms are still compliant with UK loading gauge. That plus the lack of platform edge doors means ordinary UK gauge stock can be accommodated* and consequently it is harder to get a derogation to use anything other than ECTS (not that NR wanted to as the Thameslink scheme was a useful testbed for the wider roll out of ECTS in the UK) for the scheme.

 

*Yes it has restrictions - but thats to do with the Victorian tunnels it uses and technically it would be possible to run freight through there if the wagons were short ones etc.

 

 

Edited by phil-b259
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

There was, and still is NO OBLIGATION to change the signalling system after a derogation has been granted regardless of whether we were still an EU member precisely because the conditions which gave rise to the derogation (the physical infrastructure) won't change.

 

 

 

Quite wrong if we had remained in the EU. I suggest you read the derogation.

https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/modes/rail/interoperability/interoperability/doc/c_2012_73_derogation_uk_ccs_tsi.pdf

 

I agree that it is now moot.

Edited by david.hill64
Additional comment
  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Construction trains (even if they use UK locos and wagons) will be heavily restricted (e.g. pass through at walking pace) and are a very different proposition to running such trains once the line is open.

 

It has long been established that you CANNOT have level boarding between UK trains and the platform if the line has to accommodate freight wagons due to clearances.

 

Such platforms are higher than UK or even EU TSI standards permit and as such are foul of the UK loading gauge - they can only exist where tracks are EXCLUSIVELY used by dedicated passenger stock like the Crossrail core and the East London line.

 

 

I wasn't suggesting that freight or indeed anything other than Crossrail stock need use the tunnel when in service and it is certainly true that the 1100 mm platforms would present an obstacle to many types of vehicle. However, the TSI effectively allows UK to do what it wants. DfT's list of UK rail derogations doesn't contain any relating to infrastructure clearances.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/832900/Rail_Interoperability_Derogations_and_Decisions.csv/preview

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Equally platform edge doors create complex aerodynamics - once again you try running a freight or non stopping passenger train through them and there will be problems.

 

 

I think they are platform screen doors in Crossrail not platform edge doors, but I understand your point.

 

On the metros that I have worked on through running (usually of trains returning to the depot after the peaks) has not been a problem. Provided the tunnel ventilation system is designed for it the change in the pressure pulse as the train enters/leaves the station box isn't an issue.

  • Like 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...